CaptainPanic

The percentage of voters who go voting might be higher though. All in all, I think it's a safe conclusion that the EU elections have a marketing problem I wonder if the EU parties/groups and the parliament as a whole will start some campaign, or if the campaigns will also remain only local (like it is until now). With less than 1 month to go, I haven't even seen 1 political advertisement or even 1 poster on a wall. It would be the first time that I'd ask for commercials, so I won't do that... but it's weird nonetheless.

Any old dynamo from a bike will fit.

Hey, We need a LOT more parameters before this answer can be found... but first: where the hell do you get 1300 KPa (13 bar) of pressure at 700 K (427 deg C)?? And what do you want to do with the heat? - You need to choose the 2nd fluid in your heat exchanger. If something cools down, something else heats up. A common choice is water or steam (or both, meaning you make steam from water). - Then you need to choose the exit temperature (yes, you can CHOOSE that). Alternatively, if you already have the heat exchanger, you must know the "heat exchanging surface area", and preferably the type of material. You can calculate one with the other. - Then you must also determine if your flows are turbulent or laminar. For this you need to know the flow of both fluids. I believe that's all for a first approximation. This is an engineering question, or possibly a physics question. I have reported this thread and asked it to be moved. Finally, there is no need to abbreviate heat exchanger into HE. It does not make you look more scientific, and using such abbreviations will only get you into trouble when somebody doesn't understand it.

It's wonderful to write my posts in a true democracy such as SFN.

Same here. In fact, politicians and media are both mixing up European and local politics, which is quite sad because these two groups of people should know better (not 100% sure about the media though - quality can be quite poor ).

Umm... if I'm not mistaken, electrons in covalent bonds are always "trapped" between two "positive" atoms. And you don't have to search long if you want see a covalent bond. A glass of water or your very own body is made of it. Also, electrons in metals travel around the positive cores, and frequently find themselves between atoms. If you were talking about completely immobilizing an electron... I'm not so sure that this is the way towards perpetual motion. If you're going to make perpetual motion on a molecular/atomic level, then why not settle for a hydrogen atom with its electron that perpetually travels around the core?

Better still: write it on the moon. That's a geologically stable piece of rock... and it's a lot more visible from the surface of the earth. It's costly, but certainly possible with modern (nuclear) technology. It's like an old matrix printer - for every dot you need a nuclear explosion. Size the explosions such that you achieve the right resolution.

He means that America should say to all other countries that the debts will not be paid. After all, that's what happens if you go bankrupt. Then you can start over again, and you don't have to pay anything! The second part of the OP seems to suggest that the debt can be paid back by reducing the wages. I am certain that I do not understand much of the economy, but I think that this might work, eventually. The enormous debt of the USA should be compensated by working harder and consuming less foreign products. That way you can turn the import-export balance to provide an additional income to the country... Alternatively, you can also start producing goods that other people actually want to have (example: do Europeans want a small Japanese car, or a 20 meter long pickup truck from Detroit? Answer: small Japanese car).

The UK government isn't very much related to the parliament of the EU, except that members of both institutions might be a member of the same party in England. Members of the European parliament are still independent, and don't take any orders from the big shots in the UK government (at least, that's the theory). I fear that many people will vote exactly like that: just vote for the national party they like most... many people won't even check the program of the European groups... even though this might significantly differ from the national party. Alternatively, I think that many people will vote in relation to one single topic, like immigration or the possible membership of Turkey. I'll vote on the left side of the options (still haven't decided exactly what)... because I'd like to protect the rights for workers, and because I like the social character of my own country, and I'd like to see this become the standard in Europe. I do agree - the EU is quite full of hippies... and thankfully our democracy is actually functioning and we have more than 2 parties in the parliament to represent not only the industry, but also the hippies who live on this continent. The fact that the list cracks you up (you, being an "outsider American-type person") is probably a compliment for our democracy. We Europeans also have a good laugh when we discuss the "American democracy"

Probably something like a book.

I clicked on the poll - do I win a prize now? I agree with Mr Skeptic - I manage to read newspapers online... so I have become quite immune to flashy stuff at the edges of my screen.

Grass (specifically: reed) can be used in 2 ways: 1. Grass can hold soil together with its roots. 2. You can use grass / reed inside a sea protection: the same as the metal in reinforced concrete. While the reed is dead, it will still improve strength. I think this will only work with clay as "building material" though - but I'm no expert. If the whole thing is kept wet constantly, then the grass/reed will not rot for hundreds of years.

Find a geologically stable site (somewhere without earthquakes or volcanos), and write your message on a plate of a noble metal. My thought is that if fossils can survive, then a message can survive. Alternatively, if you have to store it on a geologically less stable site: Massively strong steel box, covered with a thick layer of a noble metal? Basically a safe which is entirely coated with platinum? Final idea: make many, many, many copies of the message. I think a bigger problem might be that the box should be opened... and most important: how are you going to make sure it's found at all? I have no solution for that.

Phase diagram or process diagram? If it's process disgram, then you can just melt one metal, and dissolve the 2nd metal into the 1st metal? Or melt the two together? Or you can copy the diagram of a steel factory, because steel is an alloy.

It all depends on the type of soil at and near the coast. Since almost the entire coastal region of the Netherlands is actually below sea level, but we do have sand dunes (natural) to protect us... I suggest you read up on that. The Dutch have a long history fighting erosion by the sea. The next is specific about the Netherlands, and possibly about other countries (but I'm not exactly sure which parts apply, and which don't). The strategies are: 1. Adapting the currents such that the sea deposits sand rather than takes it away. This can be sub-divided into several types of adaptations, but (almost?) all include the construction of something. 2. Plant sturdy types of grass in the dunes so the sand does not blow away. 3. If you can't manipulate the sea: take a giant ship, suck up the sand, and dump it on or near the beach with a huge slurry-jet. I believe it's called "Rainbowing", but the wikipedia text is rather short. 4. You can rebuild the beach with other tools and sand from another location. 5. You can build a stone wall, or concrete, or anything hard. 6. You can close off the sea, and create a sea/lake with negligible current. 7. (something I forgot?) I agree with your teacher that the shoreline currents are massively important. At the Dutch coast, the currents are mostly parallel to the beach. Therefore, the most common defense is a narrow stone construction (like a breakwater) which is meant to slow down the current nearest to the beach. I think I found that this type of structure is called a "Groyne". Anyway, the pictures on the groyne-wikipedia site resemble the ones I mean. At high tide it's completely submerged, and at low tide it's very visible. Our new strategy is to allow the sea to play with the sand. As long as it deposits as much as it takes. Sea currents can easily reach 2-3 m/s, so you can imagine that this is able to move quite a bit of sand. Other keywords related to the topic are in Dutch... I've never found so many Dutch wikipedia sites which have no links to other languages as while searching on this topic.

I rest my case.

Step 1: Write down the reaction equation. This means that you must find out the reaction products. Step 2: Find the "heat of formation" of the components (heat of formation of the elements (S and Al) is zero, look up the rest). Step 3: Calculate the heat of reaction. Alternative step 2: google on "heat of reaction" for "flash powder", and hope for the best.

I was talking about energetic efficiency. When money gets involved, I'm not sure anymore. When money gets involved, anything might be true.

Although I think I already know which national (Dutch) party I favor to represent me in the European Parliament, I want to learn more about the European political parties and political party-groups. Some parties have formed alliances and have therefore effectively merged (although they still have their own programs). Those parties and party-groups aren't very well known, because in many countries, people vote for their national parties, and people don't seem to care much for the (larger) European groups. Your national parties are member of a European party / party-group (alliance). The groups/alliances are: - EPP-ED: European People's Party–European Democrats - PES: Party of European Socialists - ALDE: Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe - UEN: Union for Europe of the Nations - Greens - EFA: European Greens–European Free Alliance\ - EUL-NGL: European United Left–Nordic Green Left - ID: Independence/Democracy - Non-Inscrits (not member of any groups) Note that for all groups listed above, the member-parties (national parties) are all listed on the wikipedia pages! Also, if it's an alliance, the individual parties can be found through wikipedia. If you're going to vote: check it out. I'll post my final choice after some more research (all this info is also new to me).

Yep, so, we need some other process to make liquid fuels, while we're working to expand our sustainable electricity generation. Converting electricity into a liquid fuel means you lose some energy (because no process is 100% efficient). And in addition, you'll have to convert some additional fossil fuels into electrivity (again not 100% efficient). So, you'd convert electricity into a fuel, and a fuel into electricity... and you lose twice.

Let's keep it all in one thread, shall we? (I added the arrows (->) in the quote above) Because you already got an answer in the previous thread, I really would expect a new question... be more specific. Repeating the same question doesn't help you. Right now, it seems to me that you haven't really tried, and you're just hoping that somebody will provide you with the answer. On this forum, you don't simply get the answers, instead you will learn.

That is true... but since those sustainable sources (wind/solar) generate electricity, we should use the electricity. If we use it to generate fuels from CO2, then the electricity must still be made, which will then be done using fossil fuels. The situation right now is such that wind and solar replace fossil fuels for electricity generation. Using wind and solar for some other purpose (such as a fuel from CO2) will mean that more electricity is made using fossil fuels... Therefore, regardless of the source of energy for fuels from CO2, it will never be sustainable until we generate so much sustainable electricity that we have an excess.

It will add to the concentration in the air, simply because no process is 100% efficient. Only if you can absorb the CO2 from the air through a sustainable process which does not require any energy which would otherwise be used elsewhere is this desirable. To my knowledge, the only sustainable process to absorb CO2 is photosynthesis. Only if a process is similar to photosynthesis (and runs on sunlight, without first making electricity) is this sustainable.

I agree that we must reduce CO2 emissions, and that the more developed world has more responsibility than the developing world. My point however is that even in the best schemes, while converting 1 mol of CO2 into methanol or some other fuel, you will create >1 mol of CO2... At this moment, we do not have an excess of sustainable energy (wind/solar)... so even if you use wind power to convert CO2 into methanol, then you will have to create extra electricity using conventional fuels... and then still you create more CO2 than when you would not convert CO2 into fuel at all... The technology is interesting, but it will not prevent any CO2 emissions.

It's a good thing to admit that something wrong has happened in the past. Denying, or ignoring torture on the long term might affect the credibility of the US government. Approving of torture would be even worse. It's not very credible to fight some wars in the name of Freedom while actually torturing the enemy.